LG: I did not bring up Obama...but since you did...here we go! I never heard or read that Obama said he was a Professor at a Chicago University. However, he was Editor of the Harvard Law Review, graduated Cum Laude, and also taught several law classes at HARVARD....that is a matter of record. Can you produce a copy of Trump's Wharton transcript....L.A. Times says he "did not finish." Yes, he did get a million dollars from dad to start his first business -which according to WP failed miserably....then daddy gave him 14 million more dollars to re-start his failed real estate business. I'm pretty sure that you or I could claim the title of "world's best businessman" if daddy gave us 15 million! With your logic the "fast king fool" Trump wanted to put in his cabinet is also qualified to be president.....NOT! Running a business is much different than running an entire company....something that you and Trump have yet to learn.....but he is quickly finding that out! Feel free to reach out to me anytime you need more educating.....I love it!

So winning the popular v**e by nearly 3 million does NOT reflect the will of the people? How does a candidate win the majority of v**es in a state and NOT WIN that state? Cian you explain? We don't KNOW if there was no bribery do we? Which is why I ASKED the question....which is a very reasonable one since the other half of the EC equation is:"....to appoint the person MOST QUALIFIED through education (donald dropped out of college at Wharton), experience (donald has NEVER held any public office...running the Trump Organization does not qualify), and character (his personal insults of everything and everyone that disagrees with him points to poor character). So, the question is valid, why did the EC select Donald Trump unless they were bribed or blackmailed? I think you're going to see news on this very topic soon.....very, very soon! BTW - ignorance is just the state of "not knowing" so if you meant that as a slam.....you failed.

W****S CAN'T EVEN WIN AWARDS WITHOUT ACCUSATIONS OF R****M

Patriot News Daily ~ Feb 14, 2017

Adele won Album of the Year at the Grammy's last Sunday, and the social justice warriors of the world are outraged at the r****t travesty of it all. Adele’s great crime? Defeating Beyonce.

This particular controversy isn’t just limited to the Tumblr’s and Jezebels of the world. Even CNN felt it necessary to run a Very Special article asking the Very Important Question: “Is R****m why Adele beat Beyonce at the Grammy's?”

Of course, we are to assume, even before opening the article, that the answer is: “Probably.”

After all, how could a plain white girl ever come out ahead of the beautiful, flawless, Black Goddess and Hero of All Americans, Beyonce? It has to be r****d.

The world has decided that Beyonce is the greatest performer who has ever lived, and she should therefore win everything, always, with no exceptions. Can you believe that the Grammy v**ers would violate this agreed-upon pact? It can only be explained by r****m.

From CNN:

Certainly for her diehard fan base known as the Beyhive — and for many music critics — Beyoncé’s “Lemonade” was a creative masterpiece.

But with its racial themes and imagery, some are questioning if the project was “just too black” for Grammy v**ers.

Kevin Powell, author of the memoir “The Education of Kevin Powell” and a forthcoming biography on rapper Tupac Shakur, thinks so.

He told CNN “Beyonce’s ‘Lemonade’ made a lot of people uncomfortable, because it is so political, so spiritual, so unapologetically black, and so brutally honest about love, self-love, trust, betrayal.”

“We are still a nation that does not want to deal so directly with t***h,” said Powell, who has written about music and race for various publications, including Vibe magazine. “Adele’s album is strong, but it is just songs about love. It is safe and uncontroversial; it breaks no new ground. And neither do Grammy v**ers, generally speaking, when it comes to picking winners of this particular award.”

Yes, it is known. The Grammy's haven’t been cutting edge since…well, it’s entirely possible that they have NEVER been cutting edge, actually. So what? Why does everything have to cater to the politically “edgy?”

The hype over black artists and their award show success has gotten to the point where we’ll soon see Oscars and Grammy's and Golden Globes go to minorities just so these organizations can avoid the backlash. Perhaps they’ll even introduce unwritten quotas. Affirmative action goes Hollywood.

Back in the real world, it won’t really matter one way or the other. But won’t those artists feel a little silly winning awards they know they didn’t earn? (Who Gives a Damn Anyway??? Don D.)

Don't The 'Spokes' Have Their Own Awards Show "Porch Moneys" or Something Like That??? (Yah, Yah I've P*ss Off About Half The Known World, The Other Half Will Laugh At My No Class R****t Humor, So What!) Maybe We Should Go All The Way, White Awards And Negro Awards??? Just a Thought... Don D.

http://patriotnewsdaily.com/w****s-cant-even-win-awards-without-accusations-of-r****m/

W****S CAN'T EVEN WIN AWARDS WITHOUT ACCUSATIONS OF R****M

Patriot News Daily ~ Feb 14, 2017

Adele won Album of the Year at the Grammy's last Sunday, and the social justice warriors of the world are outraged at the r****t travesty of it all. Adele’s great crime? Defeating Beyonce.

This particular controversy isn’t just limited to the Tumblr’s and Jezebels of the world. Even CNN felt it necessary to run a Very Special article asking the Very Important Question: “Is R****m why Adele beat Beyonce at the Grammy's?”

Of course, we are to assume, even before opening the article, that the answer is: “Probably.”

After all, how could a plain white girl ever come out ahead of the beautiful, flawless, Black Goddess and Hero of All Americans, Beyonce? It has to be r****d.

The world has decided that Beyonce is the greatest performer who has ever lived, and she should therefore win everything, always, with no exceptions. Can you believe that the Grammy v**ers would violate this agreed-upon pact? It can only be explained by r****m.

From CNN:

Certainly for her diehard fan base known as the Beyhive — and for many music critics — Beyoncé’s “Lemonade” was a creative masterpiece.

But with its racial themes and imagery, some are questioning if the project was “just too black” for Grammy v**ers.

Kevin Powell, author of the memoir “The Education of Kevin Powell” and a forthcoming biography on rapper Tupac Shakur, thinks so.

He told CNN “Beyonce’s ‘Lemonade’ made a lot of people uncomfortable, because it is so political, so spiritual, so unapologetically black, and so brutally honest about love, self-love, trust, betrayal.”

“We are still a nation that does not want to deal so directly with t***h,” said Powell, who has written about music and race for various publications, including Vibe magazine. “Adele’s album is strong, but it is just songs about love. It is safe and uncontroversial; it breaks no new ground. And neither do Grammy v**ers, generally speaking, when it comes to picking winners of this particular award.”

Yes, it is known. The Grammy's haven’t been cutting edge since…well, it’s entirely possible that they have NEVER been cutting edge, actually. So what? Why does everything have to cater to the politically “edgy?”

The hype over black artists and their award show success has gotten to the point where we’ll soon see Oscars and Grammy's and Golden Globes go to minorities just so these organizations can avoid the backlash. Perhaps they’ll even introduce unwritten quotas. Affirmative action goes Hollywood.

Back in the real world, it won’t really matter one way or the other. But won’t those artists feel a little silly winning awards they know they didn’t earn? (Who Gives a Damn Anyway??? Don D.)

Don't The 'Spokes' Have Their Own Awards Show "Porch Moneys" or Something Like That??? (Yah, Yah I've P*ss Off About Half The Known World, The Other Half Will Laugh At My No Class R****t Humor, So What!) Maybe We Should Go All The Way, White Awards And Negro Awards??? Just a Thought... Don D.

http://patriotnewsdaily.com/w****s-cant-even-win-awards-without-accusations-of-r****m/

Pafret: based on your reasoning, most of us would not be allowed to drive a car either, because few people actually know all the electronic and engineering intricacies that go into making a car run, nor could they successfully explain how a car engine generates the necessary torque to move the vehicle along. Restricting those on welfare from v****g because "they have a vested interest in v****g for whoever promises the biggest handout and they "have no skin in the game" - isn't that sort of like "blaming a horse for being a horse?" The majority of people on welfare are NOT on it because they WANT TO BE....ask your friends - I'm sure you know at least a few people on welfare -as I do also. Most of those on welfare are there usually because of some misfortune in their lives, whether it be lacking the necessary sk**ls or education to get work or a disability. So, instead of denying them their constitutional right to v**e, would it not be better to create programs that will teach/train them so they can get a job and work and NOT be on welfare? Of course, that is one of the programs Obama created, that your republican brothers shot down. It appears that Republicans are great believers in "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" - but republicans are not willing to give anyone boots or allow them to purchase them from republican owned stores.....if you understand what I mean!

Most people, whether Republican or Democrat at least agree that this past e******n has been unusual to say the least. Filled with the elements of intrigue normally found in a Tom Clancy movie ('Clear and Present Danger' - Hunt for Red October), false accusations, tales of corruption, etc., -there is still a question I have not seen any news on: "Why isn't the EC being investigated?" The EC is charged with 2 main tenets in the Constitution in regards to the p**********l e******n: 1) to affirm the winner of the popular v**e, and 2) to appoint the best qualified candidate by means of education, experience, and character. With that being said, "why did the majority of the EC appoint Trump?" He lost the popular v**e by nearly 3 million, (of course if we believed his 3-5 million illegal v**ers that number could be much higher), has never held public office, dropped out of college, 6 bankruptcies, a confirmed adulterer, womanizer, fraud, tax evader, chronic liar, narcissist, r****t, misogynist, and accused sexual predator among other accusations. All of this begs the question: "was the EC bribed or blackmailed into appointing Trump?" I find it very difficult to pass on that thought.

A litmus test for extreme vetting involves Sharia law. As part of the vetting process, all refugees and immigrants from ALL countries outside of the United States should sign a legal agreement as a part of the administration of visas and green cards that they disavow Sharia law and that if they practice Sharia law they CAN be deported. Many practices of Sharia is contrary to the human rights set by the constitution, local, state, and federal laws.

I am sure that many would ,at first, object to such an infringement on the rights of legal aliens. It would be political suicide to defend this position. Sharia denies the human rights given in our constitution to all women and homosexuals. Supporting Sharia would alienate most Americans as especially women v**ers. Homosexuality is punishable by death under Sharia thus the L***Q community certainly not embrace or tolerate Sharia.

After five years of being in this country, refugees would be required to pass a remedial TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) exam and prove proficiency in verbal communication. Refugees should also be required to pass an 8th grade level civics exam to prove that they have an understanding of our constitution and government. If they are unable to meet these requirements then they are and will be a burden on society and the American economy. If they cannot be self-supporting and contribute to our country they need to be returned. The lack of assimilation to our culture is evidence that they do not belong here.

Now that the republicans and the VP agree that Flynn lied about his talk with Sergey about the sanctions Obama put in place, how long can the orange man keep him?

Flynn has stopped pretending that he did not remember that they talked about the sanctions, but he has yet to recall what he told the Russians..

So, who is your choice of best new guy to set in Flynns old office? Or will trump keep his buddy in his desk for the future ?

While Flynn may have no plans to leave the White House, many inside the Trump administration are concerned with the fact that the national security adviser could have misled senior members of the White House, including Vice President Mike Pence, who went on national television and denied that Flynn spoke about sanctions with Sergey Kislyak, Russian ambassador to Washington.

The knives are out," the official added, acknowledging that Flynn's future in the White House is hardly a sure thing. "There's a lot of unhappiness about this."

Administration officials, some of who were once unsure about the details of the story, now believe the national security adviser did, in fact, discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador. A US official confirmed to CNN on Friday that Flynn and Kislyak did speak about sanctions, among other matters, during a December call, contradicting past statements by White House officials.
After the call was made public, Pence told CBS News on January 15 that Flynn did not talk sanctions levied by the Obama administration with Kislyak.
"They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia," Pence told CBS News.
On Friday, an aide close to the national security adviser told CNN that Flynn could not rule out that he spoke about sanctions on the call.

The episode over sanctions against Russia has opened a rift between Flynn and Pence, who exchanged a handshake Friday before Trump's news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
"It's a problem," a senior White House adviser said Friday about the possibility that Flynn misled Pence.

And most importantly, he made it possible for frustrated middle America who correctly perceived that their interests had been subjugated to the interests of muslims, black criminal thugs, the gaystapo lobby, femin**is, and the other neer-do-well malcontent l*****t, to elect as their leader, a non-politician, who would never before have warranted serious consideration prior to Obama. And instead of merely "undoing" the considerable damage inflicted on America by Obama, we need to make some serious headway in advancing American interests so that there can be no doubt that we are exceptional in the history of the world. God's chosen people. As the dying Jacob, who had been renamed Israel by God, said to his favorite son Joseph in speaking of his two children, Ephraim and Manassas, "Let my name ([Israel] be upon them." And so Ephraim would become the patriarch of the UK and Manassas the patriarch of the US. We have indeed inherited the birthright of the dew of heaven and the fatness of the land. Let us not forget where our blessings come from and continue to give credit where credit is due. Oh Happy Day!
Oh Happy Day!